A very silly boy!

[snorri]

I just believe there are many measures that could be taken to improve road safety but hi-viz for cyclists gets talked about out of all proportion to its beneficial effect.

 

[Red Light]

Adrian, you are quite right but I'd venture that this may sometimes not be the best way.

I witnessed an accident about two years ago where a motorist just before dusk pulled out on a motorcycle combination which struck his front bumper, sending the rider over his bonnet.

I'd been in a perfect posiion to see the combination but hadn't. He was riding (not long before dusk but in fair visibility) a matt black combo, with black clothing and a black helmet. No lights. All perfectly legal, but in the conditions he was so hard to see that no witness was aware of his presence until a fraction of a second before impact.

I was the first to get to the prostrate rider and thought him dead until I heard a snuffling snore-type sound from behind his visor. The rider was riding perfectly legally and within the speed limit. The motorist who pulled out on him was driving with caution.

I'm not a faddist for multiple lights and the latest shiny-fandango cyclegear. I frequently ride helmetless. Nonetheless, I do feel some sort of responsibility for giving other road users a fair chance of seeing me.

As a driver and motorcyclist I've frequently seen 'ninja' cyclists far later than I might have. This has been because they were inadequately lit. It is perfectly possible to be driving/rding perfectly legally and at the same time be making it harder than it ought to be for others to see you.

I don't get wound up by ninja riders, but many of us have seen people out there who are loading the dice unhelpfully through their clothing and lamp choices.

Given your story, do you think motorcycles and cars should all be painted in hi-viz? They seem to not see each other often enough.

 

[Red Light]

I just believe there are many measures that could be taken to improve road safety but hi-viz for cyclists gets talked about out of all proportion to its beneficial effect.

The French introduced a law requiring hi-viz to be worn by cyclists in town and in poor visibility. I looked at their cyclist accident data before and after the law was introduced and could see no difference.

 

[Crackle]

Adrian, you are quite right but I'd venture that this may sometimes not be the best way.

I witnessed an accident about two years ago where a motorist just before dusk pulled out on a motorcycle combination which struck his front bumper, sending the rider over his bonnet.

I'd been in a perfect posiion to see the combination but hadn't. He was riding (not long before dusk but in fair visibility) a matt black combo, with black clothing and a black helmet. No lights. All perfectly legal, but in the conditions he was so hard to see that no witness was aware of his presence until a fraction of a second before impact.

I was the first to get to the prostrate rider and thought him dead until I heard a snuffling snore-type sound from behind his visor. The rider was riding perfectly legally and within the speed limit. The motorist who pulled out on him was driving with caution.

I'm not a faddist for multiple lights and the latest shiny-fandango cyclegear. I frequently ride helmetless. Nonetheless, I do feel some sort of responsibility for giving other road users a fair chance of seeing me.

As a driver and motorcyclist I've frequently seen 'ninja' cyclists far later than I might have. This has been because they were inadequately lit. It is perfectly possible to be driving/rding perfectly legally and at the same time be making it harder than it ought to be for others to see you.

I don't get wound up by ninja riders, but many of us have seen people out there who are loading the dice unhelpfully through their clothing and lamp choices.

Eh, driving with caution, of course he was, that's why he pulled out in front of the fekkin motorbike. What is the point of this anecdote, which tells us nothing, that's rhetorical by the way, I require no answer.

I've witnessed a few accidents of people pulling out and in all cases it was because the person pulling out hadn't looked properly.

If I am ever the cause of an accident, it'll be because it was my fault not because the other person wasn't wearing Hi Viz/didn't have his lights on/didn't yell loud enough.

 

[Chris S]

Or more precisely a bloke using the road in a perfectly legal fashion with a reasonable expectation that other road users are reasonable people driving in a competent fashion.

It's perfectly legal to leave your home unlocked. It doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Makes me wonder how things will develop now car manufacturers are adding daytime running lights.

 

[Paul J]

Volvo had daytime lights in the 70's. People used to keep saying to my Dad about having them turned on

 

[Boris Bajic]

Given your story, do you think motorcycles and cars should all be painted in hi-viz? They seem to not see each other often enough.

A very good question. No.

Nor do I think bicycles should be hi-viz; mine are not. I am not a fan of daytime running lights for vehicles in the UK.

No more do I think cyclists' clothing should be Hi-Vis by law. Little of mine is, although I do try to wear light, bright colours.

I think many road users are are unaware of how (in)visible they are to others. I think also that many are oblivious to how little attention some other road users pay to the presence of others.

I am a fan of not making it easier for the dull and unengaged to fail to spot me when I'm out and about in a car or on a bicycle.

This is not just about lighting and the colour of clothing. Road position and other factors can also play a part.

Back to car colour: I'm not sure I'd buy a car in the shades of white, pewter and 'brushed steel' that one sees these days. If driven in mist or at dusk without lights, they do quite a good disappearing act. But hi-viz on a car? Really, no.

 

[Paul J]

I think hi-viz must help maybe more of the reflective strip material. I agree with others as hi-viz does seem to be everywhere and it no longer 'pops' out at you anymore.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Eh, driving with caution, of course he was, that's why he pulled out in front of the fekkin motorbike. What is the point of this anecdote, which tells us nothing, that's rhetorical by the way, I require no answer.

I've witnessed a few accidents of people pulling out and in all cases it was because the person pulling out hadn't looked properly.

If I am ever the cause of an accident, it'll be because it was my fault not because the other person wasn't wearing Hi Viz/didn't have his lights on/didn't yell loud enough.

I see you don't want a reply. Nonetheless...

I was there. I saw it unfold. The motorcycle (approaching me head on) was to all intents and purposes invisible.

I am a former motorcycle courier and have had my share of incidents. I've flown over bonnets before and do not view this as a casual observer. The driver who pulled out was driving with caution. The Police attended. No action was taken against the driver of the car.

For insurance, the falt lay with the driver - quite rightly. In terms of prosecution, no action was taken. It was abundantly clear that in the prevailing light and conditions, the driver would not have seen the motorcyclist.

The point of the anecdote was that the rider was quite within the law and still got a very stiff neck and a long stay in hospital. Not one witness saw him approaching.

I was replying to a point from Adrian, suggesting that being within the law is not always enough.

 

[MisterStan]

Makes me wonder how things will develop now car manufacturers are adding daytime running lights.

They have recently introduced having to have sidelights on in Poland, assuming people are wearing hi-vis or something that reflects light (pedal reflectors etc), it ought to make cyclists more visible at all times in the day.

 

[Red Light]

Back to car colour: I'm not sure I'd buy a car in the shades of white, pewter and 'brushed steel' that one sees these days. If driven in mist or at dusk without lights, they do quite a good disappearing act. But hi-viz on a car? Really, no.

Doesn't seem to matter much anyway - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12410016. As with the French outcome of mandatory hi-viz for cyclists, it seems as a victim through not being seen, the colour you are makes only a small if any difference.

 

[MisterStan]

I did read somewhere that red cars are involved in less accidents than other colours....

 

[Dan_h]

I am really not convinced that it makes a lot of difference either way. I have a waterproof jacket in dayglo yello which I wear when it is cold or wet, the rest of my gear is a mix of colors and I have not really noticed a difference in drivers not seeing me. I am a bit parranoid about lighting though so do tend to put the lights on as soon as it starts getting dark.

When I drive around at dusk (or even in the dark!) I do see a number of cyclists without lights / reflective stuff and that is kind of the point, I do see them! Yes, if they were lit up I may see them sooner but generally I spot them with enough time to avoid them.

 

[Norm]

You are comparing normal everyday activity with criminality. Was that your intention?

I thought it was valid, although I'd argue that that someone who drives a car carelessly enough to put lives at risk is at a lower level than a thief.